Without access to government records, we might never know about wasteful spending, excessive salaries, exorbitant pensions, defective bridge construction, plans for nearby subdivisions or teacher abuse of children in their classrooms. Just to name a few.

Timely access to government documents should not be a discretionary budget item subject to whims of elected politicians. But it is, as we saw last summer when the state Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown quietly gutted the Public Records Act as a cost-cutting move.

They only reversed course after loud protests from media and good-government organizations across the state. After seeing the error of their ways, legislators placed Proposition 42 on the June 3 ballot to protect the law in the future. Voters should support it.

The measure would fix the root cause of last year’s misguided move. Currently, the state Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for costs of complying with law changes passed since 1975. That includes practical amendments to the Public Records Act to ensure prompt access to records.

Rather than reimburse schools, city councils, county boards and special districts for following the law, state lawmakers last summer at first simply suspended the requirements — leaving local agency compliance optional. It would have been license for secrecy, especially for those with the most to hide.

Proposition 42 would change the state Constitution to remove the reimbursement mandate for the Public Records Act. State government would no longer be financially liable. A similar requirement that the state reimburse local governments for compliance with the open-meeting law was lifted as part of a 2012 ballot measure.

There’s no reason the state should pay Walnut Creek, Oakland or San Jose for merely providing public records or proper notice of meetings. Local government should not receive reimbursement for fundamental transparency.

If approved, Prop. 42 would also elevate to the state Constitution requirements that local governments follow the records act and the Brown Act, the open-meeting law that requires local agencies conduct their business in public.

This part of the measure could have been more artfully written. It would allow the Legislature and governor to alter the laws at any time. Thus lawmakers could effectively change the Constitution without voter approval. We expressed concerns last summer that more time should have gone into the drafting to remove legal ambiguities. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

Nevertheless, the measure provides new, much-needed protection for the Public Records Act that will shield it from future state budget wrangling. On balance, it’s a major improvement that deserves your vote.